The irony of Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism

It is ironic that Jason claims he was more into "systematics" and exegesis and systematic theology than church history; yet does not seem to use the principles of systematic theology, exegesis, and progressive revelation very well.  It is possible that Jason discussed Luke 1:67-79, Galatians 2:21; 3:21 somewhere else, but I did not find any evidence of that at the things I have read and listened to that relate to these issues.

I was following some of the com box discussions that Jason participated in at the Called to Communion web-site over the past couple of years.  I have taken the time to read Jason Stellman’s “I fought the Church, and the Church won” and listen to his testimony of why he became Roman Catholic and also listen to responses from Dr. White and Turrretinfan and also a Lutheran response here.   

(linked to by a comment in the com box at John Bugay's article here.)

Bryan Cross interviews Jason Stellman’s conversion to Roman Catholicism at “Called to Communion”.

Dr. White and Turretinfan are going through significant portions of his podcast: (Part 1)

Part 2.

I am looking forward to more of Dr. White and Turretinfan’s response.

Stellman basically says that Roman Catholicism is “biblically obvious, and historically compelling, and philosophically necessary”.  Personally, I don’t see anything Biblically obvious about Roman Catholicism at all; and it is not very compelling historically, if one takes the time to examine all the relevant data of church history. Notice I wrote “relevant data” – this means I am not claiming one has to know all the details of church history, but there is a certain minimum of basic overview and flow of early church history and relevant passages in the early church fathers that one should be familiar with.  It appears that Jason slept through church history or daydreamed or was blinded by his dismissal of church history when he should have been paying more attention.  It seems to me that when Jason admitted that he thought church history was boring in seminary; and he thought that the early church fathers were “stupid”, well, now we understand why he fell for the Roman Catholic argument for itself using history and philosophy.  

Stellman also claims Roman Catholicism is “philosophically necessary”.  This seems to be the starting point of all Roman Catholic apologetics that is winning Protestants and evangelicals, even though they will not always admit this. 

Philosophy is what Bryan Cross always seems to start with and he uses philosophy more than exegesis in his arguments for Rome.  It is only philosophically necessary, it seems, in their minds, if one puts that particular philosophy and presupposition first – that there is this compelling need for an infallible interpreter on this earth to solve all disunity and interpretive struggles that the church has all through history. (which even that presupposition and dogma does not accomplish anyway either.) 

They accuse us Protestants and evangelicals of “drawing a bulls eye target and then drawing a circle around it”, but that is exactly what they do in their defense of Rome.  That is not a “tu quoque”  argument because I don’t think Biblical Protestants do that anyway.  But Roman Catholic apologists do just that.

 That idea today in Roman Catholic apologetic methodology is first drawn as a target on paper and then the Roman Catholic apologist draws his circle around that presupposition and interprets everything in the past, both Biblically and in church history, in the light of that philosophy and dogma, which only appeared in the Middle ages and was only dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church in the year 1870. 

I am amazed that Jason Stellman tossed and turned and lost sleep over Luke 1:6 about Zacharias and Elizabeth’s righteousness and that he claimed to be more into systematics than church history, when he doesn’t seem to apply principles of progressive revelation and systematics to Luke 1:6.  Did Jason also loose sleep over Noah in Genesis 6:8-9 or Job in Job 1:1 or Abraham in Genesis 26:5 ?

Or is the description of their righteousness the result of grace and faith in God and in His coming Messiah? (which is what doing systematics - putting Genesis 15:1-6 together with John 8:56-58, Romans 4:1-16, and Galatians chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 would reasonably cause us to do.)

The statement about Abraham in Genesis 26:5 is the result of his faith in the Lord and the promised Messiah to come from his own seed, explicated for us in Genesis 15:1-6.  This faith comes before his good deeds in circumcision in Genesis 17 (and clearly explained by Paul in Romans 4) and before his obedience in Genesis 22 (which is what James means in James 2:14-26).  As the reformers said, “we are justified by faith alone, but that faith does not stay alone” – it results in good works and fruit and change and deeper levels of repentance.  But as Turretinfan and Dr. White pointed out, all this righteousness is still a relative righteousness – it means basically that “they were true believers, and their faith was demonstrated by their righteous lifestyle”.  Noah was righteous, but he was only righteous because he first received grace. (Genesis 6:8-9 – notice he first gets grace, then is able to walk before God in righteousness.)  Later, Noah gets drunk (Genesis 9:20-21), so even the OT is showing us that no one is righteous, not even one.”  (Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 3:9-23)  Lot is saved from Sodom and Gomorrah and is called “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8; yet his daughter’s get him drunk and commit incest and fornication with him, gross sins.  So, even though they were relatively righteous compared to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, they were not perfectly righteous in order to merit salvation.  Rather, Lot was a true believer, saved by grace, and justified by faith in the Lord.  (from 2 Peter 2:7-9, it seems that Lot was a true believer; but there is no evidence that his daughters were, given their behavior; but Scripture is otherwise silent about them, as far as I can tell.)  The Old testament constantly shows us that no one is perfectly righteous and that the sin nature is still deep within the heart, and comes out in sinful behavior even after God judges the world and wipes out the evil people in the flood; and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

Job is also called “blameless” and “walking in the fear of God”.  (Job 1:1)  Does that mean he was justified by his own righteousness and goodness?  No, obviously – because the rest of Job is showing that he had an unrighteous attitude (showing he was not blamelessly righteous in that sense) in demanding that God has to come down and explain to him why he was made to suffer.  Job’s attitude was refined through suffering – that is sanctification.  The book of Job shows us that Job’s own righteousness did not justify him, but his faith in God and the hope of the resurrection seems to point to the Messiah to come, in Job 19:25-26; and his repentance in Job 42:1-6 was because he already was a true believer.      

Jason Stellman claims to have been more of a systematic theologian kind of guy; yet he gives no hint of actually doing systematics in the way he treats Luke 1:6, at least in the interview on the Called to Communion Podcast. 

Systematic theology is looking at the other relevant passages that would explain Luke 1:6 –

Does not proper systematic theology immediately bring to mind these very clear verses from Paul in teaching contexts about the nature of grace alone for salvation and faith alone for justification?

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Galatians 2:21

This verse clearly shows us that Luke 1:6 does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous in themselves by keeping the law blamelessly and that that goodness would be counted as merit in order to get them into heaven.  The coming of the Messiah and His redemption was what all OT saints were looking forward to.  (Genesis 15:1-6; 12:3; 22:18; Galatians 3:6-8; 14-16)

“Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”  Galatians 3:21-22

Galatians 3:21 shows us that the law was never given in order to give us life – that we could attain eternal life by obeying it’s commands. 

Why doesn’t Jason Stellman keep reading in Luke?  Why doesn’t he look at the context of Luke chapter 1 and follow the Scripture passage to Luke 1:67-79 and see that more is said about Zacharias’ faith, and his faith is clearly related to his son John the baptizer and his ministry to pointing to salvation, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins, and the ministry of pointing to the Messiah – to prepare the way of the Lord.  Notice the repetition of the word salvation and the whole Messianic implications of his prophesy.

Zacharias’ faith was in the Messiah to come:

Luke 1:67-79
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:  “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us ;  

In the house of David His servant— 

As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

Salvation from our enemies,
 And from the hand of all who hate us;
To show mercy toward our fathers,
 And to remember His holy covenant, 

[see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 22:18 and Galatians 3:6-8, 14-16]

          The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
 

For you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; [allusion to Isaiah 40:3-5] 

To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
;   

By the forgiveness of their sins,

Because of the tender mercy of our God,
 With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, 

[Jesus as the light of the world who would settle in Galilee of the Gentiles - see Isaiah 9:1, John 7:52 and John 8:12; see also Matthew 4:12-17 as to why Jesus settled in Nazareth]  

To shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
 

[quoting Isaiah 9:2, which points to the Messiah being the light of the world and the son who is given to us, the Mighty God, the prince of peace, the wonderful counselor.  See Isaiah 9:1-7. ]

To guide our feet into the way of peace.”  

[this alludes to the “prince of peace” in verse 6 of Isaiah 9 and Micah 5:2-5.] 

(Luke 1:67-79 with my emphasis and comments)

That Zacharias mentions salvation so much, and that John the baptizer’s ministry would give the people the knowledge of salvation, by the forgiveness of their sins, shows that in some way, Zacharias was the blessed man of Romans 4:7-8 and Psalm 32, being justified by faith alone, and that his deeds of obedience were the result of his faith. 

Isn't that a better example of understanding progressive revelation, the NT fulfillment of the OT, exegesis, and systematic theology?